Fred Smith, founder and CEO of Federal Express, is a power supporter of John McCain, and has even appeared on some vice-presidential short lists.
This raises a fair question: should Democrats -- and others who fiercely oppose John McCain's positions on the war, on abortion, on stem cell research, on habeas corpus for detainees, on a raft of issues -- stop using FedEx?
The argument for a boycott -- and yes, that's what it would be -- is clear. Why should we feather the nest of someone who supports policies that we believe are harmful to the long-term interests of the United States, that violate the Constitution, and that are economically disastrous and morally reprehensible?
Fred Smith is entitled to support and speak up for anyone or any cause he believes in, the argument continues. And as consumers we are equally free to spend our money how and where we want. Avoiding a company that violates our convictions is no different than going out of our way to support a company that shares our values. For example, one that has a progressive sustainability program, or has generous maternity and paternity leave benefits, or gives disproportionately to charity.
Indeed, given the passions of this election, and the ability of the Internet to turn an off-hand idea like this one into fodder for the 24/7 news cycle, I'm surprised this hasn't appeared on some blog or other. (If it has, I haven't seen it.)
And yet there's another side to the argument, and it's pretty compelling in it own right. Here's how the non-boycott side might have it, including those who are Obama supporters:
A boycott is a blunt instrument that punishes someone for doing nothing more than exercising their Constitutional, free-speech prerogative. And it's a dangerous precedent when you look to exact economic punishment for supporting someone who has mainstream political views; there's something about it that violates some core American value. (It's not like Fred is a policy advisor to Lyndon LaRouche).
Do we actually want to discourage political involvement, or force it underground, whether it be on the mega-level of Fred Smith, or your local dry cleaner or hardware store who might be afraid to put up a sign supporting a candidate for fear of offending their customers? Isn't Fred Smith just acting as a citizen, even if his bumper stickers can metaphorically go up on a fleet of trucks and planes? (Actually, I've seen no crossover of Mr. Smith's politics and his pick-ups.)
And where would the slippery slope end? How narrowly would we have to parse a whole series of litmus tests before we decided to part company with a company? Couldn't this have a chilling effect on political engagement? Isn't part of American civic society that we can agree to disagree without demonizing those who feel differently?
Well, let the free-market decide, the pro-boycott side would -- ironically -- argue. It's another kind of economic democracy in action. Consumers have the right to choose based on quality, price, color, aroma, and CEO politics. CEOs make a lot of judgments, so let them calibrate whether it's important enough to jeopardize business when they get actively involved in a campaign, just like they calibrate whether they should take the PR heat for following Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage and moving jobs offshore.
And "actively involved" is the operative word. No one would reasonably threaten a boycott of FedEx simply because Fred Smith contributed to John McCain. It's the depth of his involvement and his closeness to the campaign and the candidate that are boycott-worthy. Fred Smith has put his name and reputation behind John McCain, the argument goes, and that has consequences.
I've seen boycotts used for good and bad. Boycotts helped put economic pressure on South Africa for its apartheid policies -- although the real squeeze came when government profit-sharing plans began to divest themselves of companies that invested in South Africa.
But boycotts were also a tool used against Israel in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Arab states refused to do business with companies who traded with Israel. Many companies, including Coca-Cola, were unwilling to give up business in the Arab world, so they joined the boycott. And, in turn, some Jews refused to buy Coca-Cola, in a boycott arms race.
What then, of my theoretical argument to boycott FedEx? Should democrats move their business elsewhere, or should the boycott weapon be used only in highly selective circumstances when the opponent has clearly crossed a moral or ethical line? I'll give you my perspective next time, but meanwhile, what do you think?